Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java - Page 7

The whole concept of "infringement as theft" is one popularised by big media who are seeking to be victims in whatever forum they can.

It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. You may deprive them of the revenue from that thing, but that is different. You might call that 'infringement of IP'.

I don't think anyone denies IP infringement is using something which is not yours to use, but it shouldn't be confused with theft. You are certainly interfering with rights which the IP owner is free to give and control by dint of copyright, patent and design statute, but's its not theft.

There are several different compulsory license provisions in United States copyright law , including for non-dramatic musical compositions,[9] public broadcasting,[10] retransmission by cable systems,[11] subscription digital audio transmission,[12] and non-subscription digital audio transmission such as Internet radio.[13] The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[14] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license

The member you are supporting has 1,864 posts in a little over a month. You can click on his name and see a log of all his posts, You will find that most are argumentative, contrarian and frequently change arguments/positions -- always moving the goalposts and muddying the water. These actions typify troll behavior -- in fact, I mentioned that @gloudgaser reminds me of a troll from a few months ago.

BTW. I am a frequent poster and have double the amount of @gloudgazers posts in 4 years (compared to 1 month plus).

Wikipedia is a valuable source of information -- but I certainly would not use it (or any Internet source) for moral or legal advice.

I do care about distinction -- but decry weasel-words -- and parsing everything for esoteric meaning or gotchas.. Like most people, I do know when something is dishonest, unethical or immoral -- whatever the dictionary or wiki chooses to call it.

If I had a significant holding of GOOG stock (have been, not currently) and Google is found to have willfully infringed patents to the detriment of my investment, I would certainly be interested in any legal redress possible. Their actions would have stolen from me as a shareholder, IMO.

Finally, I did not really mean to insult you -- but your first post was contrary to the general attitude of this thread -- by some very well reasoned and respected contributors -- over a much longer time than @cloudgazer.

Perhaps, we would all have been better served if you had lurked a little longer or entered the discussion with less of an "in your face" attitude.

But, welcome aboard! I look forward to having reasoned discussions with one who can give as well as he takes.

So, the clerk who pockets $50 out of the cash register is not stealing -- because the stuff sold was worth the full price -- and the stuff in inventory is still worth full price?

Can we start again, please?

..; you've said yourself: "you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved."

@melgross

fair enough about not using wikipedia for definitions.

But the point i made is still valid. The government is responsible for criminals. "Stealing" is a criminal act. Calling somebody a thief by implication calls for the government to be involved.

One person may say "i dont care, i am calling them thieves" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "They are criminals" and then that person or somebody else will logically follow it up with "the government should do something, they are criminals and they belong in jail".

Do you see how these steps logically follow each other? MPAA and RIAA are doing the same thing. They throw around "thieves" and "stealing" when talking about copyright violations and sooner or later if it hasnt already happen, governments of the world will start doing their bidding using the resources of the state going after them. This is a logical step after you see somebody as being a thief since the government is responsible for dealing with thieves.

ps:
Either this forum doesnt work well with chrome or it has a strange way of quoting others i havent figured out yet

Well the judge has requested that Oracle reduce the number of claims in the suit, so we'll see if Claim 5 on that patent makes the cut. I'm betting not.

Maybe, but it isn't in Oracle's best interest to kill Android. A low per device license that allows Android to be successful would earn much more money for Oracle.

Huh? That's clearly different, the Clerk is depriving the store of the $50. Now the clerk in the bookstore who reads the store's books during quiet times and then replaces them - he's not stealing.

You know another sign of trolls and fanboys? Ad hominems.

I guess the questions for manufacturers will be:

Here are three OSes Android, WP7, and WebOS

Which do you want to us and how much will you pay for the privilege?


I suspect that Android at a cost of $0 is quite a different question than Android Cost >= WP7 or WebOS.

Why do you bring bookstore into the equation -- obviously to muddy the waters.

We were discussing patent infringement and thieving not reading books on company time -- so as to be better able to recommend them to potential customers!

Someone on the Internet is definitely wrong!

What the hell are you talking about, man?


You've deprived the shop owner of 50 bucks. That's theft by any definition.

I realize that I am on the edge of a personal criticism -- but after a while, the tedium grates a bit.

I'll match my record against yours -- any day!

I am talking about your quote above: "It is not theft. When you infringe IP you do not deprive that person of the thing you've thieved. "


Exactly! Theft is theft -- by any definition!

Like it or not, it's simply not okay to rip off someone's protected intellectual property, slap an open-source license on it, and then give it away for free. If Google wants to give away Android for free that badly, let them build it from the ground up and expend some resources. Google knew that Java was protected IP. They chose to not license it. Instead, they used Java in Android and distributed it under the guise of an open-source license.

I wonder how Google would feel if someone were to figure out Google's search-engine algorithm and use that to create their own search engine. They will gladly use any tools at their disposal to defend that algorithm, as they should. I wouldn't blame them for it. That algorithm is the fruits of their hard work, and others shouldn't be able to piggyback off of it and make money on it. On the same token, Google should not cry foul when others try to defend the fruits of their hard work.

Also, there is this weird notion that a patent harms innovation. Suppose entity A has a patent on X technology. That means other entities cannot make things that use X technology, unless entity A says it's okay to do that. But what prevents others from innovating around entity A's patent on X technology? Why not invest resources in coming up with something that renders entity A's patent obsolete? This is the intent of patents.

And that's why that post about "$50 bucks? So what?" is absurd. Even with that ASP chart, why in the world would handset makers (most of which are losing money every quarter) buy into android at that price when every one of them could get another OS for much less? Android isn't driving customers as much as it is a more purvasive alternative with little "stickiness" thus far (look at Android's tablet sales for partial evidence). If the cost gets too high due to lawsuits or licensing agreements, then I see little reason companies that make the hardware would continue utilizing Google's OS.

Infringement is closer to murder than theft, because it kills the creative spirit. As such, the death penalty is appropriate.

That is not theft; it is embezzlement. If he hadn't read that, he would have paid for it.

Well at least you stopped claiming that all the patents were unequivocally valid, though the continued attempts to redefine the word theft are certainly tedious.

I was trying to offer you a valid analogy since you seemed to be having trouble. By all means try again yourself though.

Thanks.

Yep. I agree.

But what would be cheaper? WP7? It's already an equivalent price and consumers are simply not interested - MS's brand value in the mobile space appears to be negative. Android isn't as compelling an OS as iOS but it is currently head and shoulders above the non-apple platforms, and another $20 per handset isn't going to meaningfully change that.

Now if WebOs or WP manage to take off and get serious penetration then the additional cost might start to have an impact, but as the market stands right now? No.

Interesting that I'm a troll because I've posted so much, but you attack this guy in a personal and completely unsubstantive fashion because his first post disagrees with you. Nice way of encouraging an honest exchange of thoughts man, classy.

This is going around in circles already.

Q. I use some one's invention (patent) without licensing it. What part of the invention does the inventor no longer have? That is, what part of the invention have I thieved?

A. I have not thieved anything. The original inventor still has the invention, and still has the rights to the invention.

It is *convenient* to think of such an act as theft because it projects our physical understanding of things into the non-physical domain of intellectual property. It is also wrong to characterise it in such a way.

The fact that Copyright, Design and Patent statutes *exist in the first place* recognises that theft of these things *cannot* occur: that there is a gap in the law. If it is theft, as you maintain, the common law should be ably equipped to handle these situations. The truth is that the common law cannot do so.

Additionally, the statutes never mention the word 'theft', 'larceny', 'steal' because they simply are not words appropriate to the situation. They use the word infringement because that is what occurring. Your rights to license, sell, or whatver are being infringed. Don't confuse it with 'stealing', because your rights to possession of the thing are never touched.


1 == 1. I don't get what you're saying.

But again that assumes the Oracle does push the total price beyond that of the competition, but if they do that it really is the equivalent of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Java ultimately loses.

There is also the question of how much the ability to customize Android and differentiate phones from the competition is worth to manufacturers. We seen this with Windows desktop. The OS is identical so people just buy the cheapest PC; the only company making real profits is Microsoft. All WP7 phones look the same so why buy an HTC phone over an LG? But on Android they have HTC Sense so there is something that differentiates them.

Infringement is theft because it's 'morally equivalent'. Infringement is immoral because it's theft. Everybody knows infringement is theft. People who don't think infringement is immoral think that only criminal acts are immoral! Theft is Theft! The arguments just get more and more bizarre.

We've had appeal to majority, straw man, ad hominems, appeal to authority and circular reasoning. What fallacy is next? Shall we place a side-bet?

+++ qft

Some cultures have no concept of ownership. As such, the concept of theft is not understood.

Boy, you are really getting confused -- click on my name & review my posts! I never made any claims about any patents -- an area in which I have little knowledge or experience.

Sht!! I have enough trouble talking about things I understand -- than to waste time pontificating on things I don't!

I am basing what I post on what I read, carefully, research, carefully and the opinions of others more qualified than I -- whose opinions and reasoning I respect. Your opponent @mellgross is one of these ( though we've had our set to's).

Just because someone criticizes your posts does not mean that we criticize the facts.

Seriously -- there is a discussion going on here and many people have things to contribute -- that, mas o menos, aligns with their particular area of expertise,

I would hope that we all contribute honestly, reasonably, factually on a best effort basis.

Please join us -- as you certainly have things to contribute!

Appeal to reason and logic!

Those are very good points! I doubt that anyone knows what Oracle's intentions are. Conceivably, Oracle could end up owning Android (or its replacement) and become a major player in the mobile marketplace -- Larry Ellison has had some forays into the thin-client workspace. What is more thin-client than today's Tablet?

One of those cultures is apparently the one germinating in Google campus.

So yes, you did, you stated that Google had no doubt that the patents were valid, which is actually stronger than simply claiming that the patents are valid. Then you ad hominemed, Was a great post really all told.

Whenever you're ready!

Ready!

Let's use facts as such, and identify opinions as such.

I am in CA and we will have dinner soon -- so I may be away for a bit!

But I have an iPad thet [mostly\\ lets me keep up!

'K?

I'm in the UK so it's bedtime, if you post something tonight I'll get back to it tomorrow.

If the participants at Google felt the patents were valid and chose to proceed anyway -- doesn't that make their action willful infringement -- even if the patents could, later, be invalidated,


They chose to violate the law as they understood it!

How can you not understand that?

Before you chaps return to battle read this article on the subject of theft - if only for the Helicopter joke. I think you will both recognize your own and the other's viewpoints and realize it's not such a clear cut case as 'theft is theft', or ' infringement cannot be theft'.

No it wasn't doing it for the greater good. It was doing it for the same reason it does everything. Namely, to make more advertising dollars associated with the search of books. However, that doesn't make Google's actions a copyright violation.

Look at the famous Sony Betamax copyright case. Sony was sued by the content holders for selling a device that allowed purchasers of that device to make a copy of the content holders content (that was broadcast over the television airwaves) without permission so that the users of the device could view the content at their leisure. Under the sentiment expressed by you, that sounds like a copyright violation to me. Copying without permission. Doing it to make money. Not paying the content holders. Sound familiar?

The Supreme Court held Sony's actions were fair use under the copyright laws because Sony's actions served the public good and didn't substantially deprive the content holders of their income from the content.

Under the copyright laws, Google can make money off of another's copyrighted works provided it doesn't significantly deprive the content holders their method of making money. Google's service didn't interfere with their ability to sell books. In fact, it might even increase book sales. It definitely would have benefitted the public good.

Luckily for the authors' guild, Google didn't push the matter further in the Courts. It likely would have won without having to pay the authors anything (at least on copyright grounds).